******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
There are no white supremacists on the civil war either, and no defenders of slavery. They all argue that it was about states rights, freedom and being invaded. Generally speaking they argue along the lines that Mark defended the defenders of the Alamo. But don't you dare call them white supremacists. There are no white supremacists any more, maybe a few self-declared racists, but no one else - these are all legitimate debates about something else. Been there, heard that a thousand times. Clay Claiborne, Director Vietnam: American Holocaust <http://VietnamAmericanHolocaust.com> Linux Beach Productions Venice, CA 90291 (310) 581-1536 Read my blogs at the Linux Beach <http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/> <http://wlcentral.org/user/2965/track> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Jeff via Marxism < marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > I found the posts on this history topic, which I had no previous exposure > to, rather interesting. But I wish it could be discussed without raising > the tone of the debate in terms such as: > > On Fri, October 31, 2014 17:38, Clay Claiborne via Marxism wrote: > > > > To make it even more clear. I said that those fighting at the Alamo were > > fighting for white supremacy. You said they weren't. If I am right, you > > are defending white supremacy. > > Well of course the latter conclusion doesn't follow, as I'm sure Clay > would agree after thinking about it. While differing analyses of history > certainly can reflect the ideologies of the respective analysts, one can > never just assert such a relationship. And even if Clay could prove that > Mark's views are exactly those of white sepremacists, that doesn't even > prove those historical assessments wrong (very often those further on the > right have a clearer view than liberals). Even if Mark is wrong and has > the exact views of white supremacists (or whatever) I am quite sure that > he does NOT defend white supremacy as attested to by all of his other > views on various historical and political issues. > > We could have a more productive discussion if people don't make such > charges, and especially if differing takes on historical questions are not > automatically taken to reflect different world views or political > positions on current issues. I know we all are tempted to do that during a > heated argument. But to make such a valid charge, you would need to show > how that person's conclusion flowed from the evil ideology or from flawed > historical records, for instance. Let's try to keep the discussion more > civil. > > - Jeff > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: > http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/clayclai%40gmail.com > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
